Utah Justice RESIGNS Amid Affair Scandal

Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen resigned immediately on May 8, 2026, dodging a state investigation into claims of an affair with a lawyer challenging Republican redistricting maps, raising urgent questions about judicial impartiality in election battles.[1][3]

Story Snapshot

Justice Hagen steps down amid ex-husband’s allegations of inappropriate texts with attorney David Reymann during redistricting case.[1][4]
Judicial Conduct Commission dismissed initial complaint, but state leaders demanded deeper probe before resignation halted it.[1][3]
Hagen denies wrongdoing, cites family privacy after 30-year marriage dissolution; leaders pivot to Judicial Conduct Commission reforms.[1][2]
Allegations tie to Utah’s partisan redistricting fight, where Reymann represented groups against GOP maps.[4][5]
Resignation ends her term before fall retention vote, sparking debate on accountability versus political pressure.[3][5]

Allegations Spark from Personal Turmoil

Hagen’s ex-husband accused her of an inappropriate relationship with David Reymann, lead attorney for League of Women Voters in Utah’s redistricting lawsuit.[1][4] He claimed seeing text messages that shifted from silly to suggestive as their 30-year marriage crumbled around late 2024.[1] A Provo attorney filed the December 2025 complaint with Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and Judicial Conduct Commission based on ex-husband interviews.[1][5] Reymann denied all claims, calling them false.[1][3]

Hagen joined Utah Supreme Court in 2022, facing retention this fall.[1] She reconnected with old friends, including Reymann, in spring 2025, then updated her recusal list in May, barring herself from his cases.[3][5] Court records show her last redistricting involvement in October 2024, before reconnection.[5] The Supreme Court defended her proactive recusal.[5]

Investigation Demands from State Leaders

Governor Spencer Cox, Senate President J. Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz demanded further review in April 2026, despite Judicial Conduct Commission dismissal.[1][2] They cited serious questions on external relationships with redistricting lawyers.[2][3] Hagen recused from the case after renewing ties but before ex-husband’s claims surfaced.[5] Leaders viewed allegations as threats to judicial independence.[2]

Joint statement post-resignation declared the matter concluded, dropping probes.[1][3] All branches pledged Judicial Conduct Commission reforms for accountability and public trust.[1][2] This shift prioritizes process fixes over individual scrutiny, aligning with conservative emphasis on strong institutions over personal vendettas.[1]

Hagen’s Resignation Letter Details

Hagen submitted her immediate resignation to Governor Cox on May 8, 2026, expressing deep sadness.[1][3] She affirmed upholding her constitutional oath and ethical duties.[3] Resignation shields family from scrutiny over divorce details, as public officials face higher standards but loved ones do not.[1] Cox’s office thanked her service.[1][10]

Chief Justice Durrant, Adams, Schultz, and Cox hailed her step for the institution’s good.[1][2] Hagen regretted court disruption but prioritized privacy and judiciary function.[3] Her exit avoids fall retention vote amid controversy.[1]

This important court resignation could have major implications in the battle over redistricting in Utah.

Justice Diana Hagen resigned from the Utah Supreme Court. Governor Cox, along with House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President J. Stuart Adams announced an investigation…

— Don Palmer (@VotingGuy) May 9, 2026

Conservative common sense demands judges avoid even apparent conflicts in election cases protecting GOP maps.[4] Facts show timely recusal, Commission dismissal, and denials weaken affair claims.[1][5] Yet unreleased texts leave lingering doubt—transparency via records release would resolve it, bolstering trust over hasty closure.[1][5]

Implications for Judicial Ethics and Redistricting

This case exposes vulnerabilities in handling personal ties during partisan litigation.[5] Utah’s redistricting upheld Republican-friendly maps with four safe seats; Hagen’s role predated alleged issues.[4] Broader U.S. trends show ethics complaints often dismiss due to proof hurdles, favoring recusals.[3] Reforms could mandate disclosures, preventing future shadows on rulings.[1]

Resignation preserves court stability but fuels calls for rigor. Politicized probes risk eroding independence, yet ignoring appearances invites distrust—balance demands facts over innuendo.[2][3] Utah leaders’ pivot to reforms signals commitment to excellence, a model for safeguarding self-rule through impartial justice.[1]